Dads who fight win favour in custody cases

FATHERS who want custody of their children
will have more success in the Family Court than by trying to strike a
deal with their ex-partners.

The Australian, Australia's national daily newspaper, By Michael Pelly, March 24, 2009

In a break with conventional wisdom, fathers are twice as likely to
get majority custody of their children if they take their fight to the
court.

A Family Court review shows fathers were given majority custody in 17
per cent of litigated cases, but only in 8 per cent of those settled by
consent, or early agreement, with the mothers.

The review of the shared parental responsibility reforms of 2006
shows that in 14 per cent of litigated cases, the father received
between 30 and 45 per cent of custody. This figure fell to 11 per cent
for early agreements.

The review shows that, if fathers are given less than 30 per cent
custody, abuse and violence are the main reasons. And about one in 12
court cases end with an order that a child should spend time with their
grandparents.

The reforms, passed by the Howard government, introduced a rebuttable
presumption of "equal time" parenting and were aimed at promoting
co-operation over conflict.

However, only 15 per cent of the litigated cases and 19 per cent of
the consent agreements ended in orders for 50-50 care between the
parents.

The biggest group was mothers who were awarded the majority of time
with their children -- they represented 60 per cent of the litigated
cases and 68 per cent of consent cases.

The survey assessed 1448 of the 6992 litigated cases in 2007-08, and
2719 of 10,575 cases settled by consent or early agreement.

The biggest group of men (33per cent) were those awarded less than 30
per cent custody. Abuse and family violence was the main reason in 29
per cent of these matters, followed by entrenched conflict (15 per
cent).

Of the 9 per cent of cases in which women were awarded less than 30
per cent custody, mental health was the dominant factor in 31 per cent
of cases followed by distance and financial barriers (16per cent) and
abuse and family violence (16 per cent).

Substance abuse was cited as a main reason for the Family Court
making sub-30 per cent orders, with 4per cent of the fathers were and 7
per cent of mothers.

In 6 per cent of litigated cases, the father was ordered to spend no
time with their child. The same order applied to only 1 per cent of
women.

The information, which was posted on the Family Court's website
yesterday, came with a warning that the court considers only the most
serious cases, with the remainder being handled by the Federal
Magistrates Court.

When the Coalition passed the Family Law Amendment Act (Shared
Parental Responsibility Act), it established 60 Family Relationship
Centres around Australia as a first stop for couples in conflict.

"The aim was to encourage parents to consider, where appropriate,
reaching an agreement regarding parenting arrangements in the first
instance themselves rather than having the court as a first option," the
court said yesterday.

"Given this, it is to be expected that there might be a higher number
of shared care or substantial sharing of time cases negotiated outside
the courts."

The figures show grandparents have been a beneficiary of the reforms,
which specifically said their access rights were to be considered.

An estimated 560 cases -- or 8per cent of the litigated cases -- end
with orders containing provision for time with grandparents. The figure
fell to 2 per cent for consent agreements.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said the statistics should not be
compared with pre-2006 data because of the changes in legislation and
the way the information was collected.

The court is working with the Australian Institute of Family Studies
on cases that were decided before 2006 and can be compared with matters
decided under the new legislation.

Paternity Fraud CasePhilippines

Bacolod Regional Trial Court Judge Ray Alan Drilon has annulled the marriage
of a Negrense couple after a DNA test showed that the child borne by the
wife was not the biological offspring of the husband who works abroad.

The family court judge ruled that the marriage of the couple, whose names
are being withheld by the DAILY STAR on the request of the court, was null
and void.

Due to fraud committed by the wife in getting her overseas worker husband
to marry her, properties acquired during their marriage are awarded in favor
of the husband, the judge said in his decision, a copy of which was furnished
the DAILY STAR yesterday.

The judge also declared that since the overseas worker is not the biological,
much less the legitimate father of the child of the woman, the Civil Registrar
is ordered to change the surname of the child to the mother’s maiden name
and remove the name of the plaintiff as father of the child.
More..

Paternity FraudSpain
Supreme Court

Adulterous woman ordered to pay husband £177,000
in 'moral damages'

The Daily Mail, UK18th February 2009

An adulterous Spanish woman who conceived three children with her lover
has been ordered to pay £177,000 in 'moral damages' to her husband.

The cuckolded man had believed that the three children were his until
a DNA test eventually proved they were fathered by another man.

The husband, who along with the other man cannot be named for legal reasons
to protect the children's identities, suspected his second wife may
have been unfaithful in 2001. More..

Infidelity may be natural according to studies that show nine out of 10 mammals and birds that mate for life are
unfaithful.

Experts found animals that fool around are only following the urges of biology.

New studies using genetic testing techniques show that even the most
apparently devoted of partners often go in search of the sexual company of strangers.

Females stray to gather the best possible genes for their offspring, while males are driven to father as many and as
often as possible.

"True monogamy actually is rare," said Stephen T Emlen, an expert on evolutionary behaviour at Cornell University.
More ..

A Quote Worth Remembering

"We must vigilantly stand on guard within our own borders for human
rights and fundamental freedoms which are our proud heritage......we cannot
take for granted the continuance and maintenance of those rights and freedoms."